Virginia's suit against Obama health insurance reform allowed to go forward

[Karmadillo]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/virginia/va-health-care-lawsuit-to-proc.html

A federal judge Monday refused to dismiss a Virginia lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal health-care law, handing the law's foes their first victory in a courtroom battle likely to last years.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson rejected arguments from Obama administration lawyers that Virginia has no standing to sue over the law and no chance of ultimately prevailing in its constitutional claim.

The lawsuit, lodged by Virginia Republican Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli II, argues that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority when it included a provision in the law mandating that citizens purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine.

Cuccinelli filed the suit moments after President Obama signed the sweeping health-care bill into law, citing the federal law's conflict with a new Virginia statute that made it illegal to require state residents to purchase health insurance.

more...

[Tempest]

1. No surprise he's a Bush appointee

Hudson is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Hudson was nominated by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2002, to a new seat created by 114 Stat. 2762.

[joeybee12]

2. Also the guy who sentenced Vick...n/t

[Statistical]

3. Good. Mandates are unfair and maybe Unconstitutional

Regardless of if VA ultimately loses the suit, Constitutional review is a valid method of checks & balances.

Does the the federal govt have the right to mandate purchase of private goods and services from a private party via the Commerce Clause?

Maybe they do, however this would be the first time in history that the power via the Commerce Clause has been pushed (stretched) this far. Anytime the government moves into uncharted waters it is both good and important that the government be challenged. Without challenges the Constitution is irrelevant. It is only by challenges that the protects put in place via the Constitution have weight.

The Commerce clause has been stretched and twisted to the point that federal power is ALMOST unlimited, but even SCOTUS has found the ability to enact legislation via the Commerce Clause to have limits. In a few instances it has ruled against an extension of federal authority. The most notable being US v. Lopez.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Maybe the Supreme Court will decide this too pushes the Commerce Clause too far, maybe they won't. In either case the question is a valid one for the court and the challenge is good.

[Myrina]

4. Agreed.

n/t

[still_one]

5. Then why isn't Social Security Taxes uncontitutional? /nt

[Statistical]

6. Come one really?

First of all I am not saying it IS Unconstitutional, I am simply saying it is a valid question for the court.


You can't see the difference between SS a government run program and a mandate to buy private for profit insurance from a third party?


SS: the govt is collecting taxes and using those funds to pay for a govt program.
HCR mandate: the govt is forcing you to choose between buying for profit insurance & paying a fine for non-compliance

The equivalent would be abolishing social security and mandating everyone open a 401K account with for-profit entities like Citibank. Failure to do so results in a fine. Would you consider that Constitutional?

The govt is forcing you the individual to purchase a good or service from a private for-profit entity. The good or service may be of no use to you, and you may not want it however your options are
a) purchase the worthless service
b) pay a fine for your noncompliance.

So if HCR mandate is Constitutional do you also agree that forced retirement accounts held by the likes of JP Morgan & Citibank (and backed by fines for non-compliance) are also equally Constitutional?

What about other forced financial services?
Forced checking/savings accounts, forced credit cards, forced life insurance policies, etc.

[area51]

10. +1 (n/t)

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Cuccinelli makes Teaboggers look sane.

He makes his Liberty University governor look fair.

He make Cheney seem inclusive.

[cbdo2007]

8. We're voting on this in MO tomorrow....but I think this all part of Obama's plan.

Think about it - these Health Insurance Mandates are a Republican idea and they follow the fiscal conservative ideology. This isn't something us Dems really want either. I think Obama just included it in the Health Care Reform bill because he knew the Repubes would jump on this and fight to overturn this small part of it - so that the important parts of the bill can start working silently throughout the country.

It isn't a knock to Obama if they get rid of the Health Insurance Mandate, this was one of the compromises he was giving the Repubes in the bill. Thankfully they are ignoring the other 99% of the bill which is what we really need to lower health care and health insurance rates and work toward getting coverage for all.

I'm against the Health Care Mandate and most other Dems I know are too, so fine, take that part out of the bill while the other parts of the bill are actually helping people.

[MisterP]

9. Cuccinelli vs. Aetna and Blue Cross--asshole fight!

of course, this might be part of a grand effort to cement Dem support for the mandates: ZOMG TEH REPUBLICAN$ R AGAINST HEALTHCARE 4ALL!!!!!1111111